Filed 11/20/17 P. v. Chavez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAULE RIVERA CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.
H044556
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1354873)
As part of a judgment of conviction for failing to register as a sex offender, defendant Raule Rivera Chavez was ordered to pay to the County of Santa Clara a $259.50 Criminal Justice Administration fee, colloquially referred to as a booking fee. He argues on appeal that the fee was imposed based on an insufficient record. For the reasons explained here, we will affirm the judgment.
I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with failure to reregister as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (a); count 1) and failure to update sex offender registration annually (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (c); count 2). The complaint alleged a prior strike (Pen Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i); 1170.12) and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). While serving a federal sentence, defendant requested a speedy trial and was temporarily transferred to state custody. Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2 and admitted the prior convictions. He was sentenced under the terms of a negotiated disposition to a 32-month prison term concurrent to his federal sentence. The state sentence was deemed served with federal custody credits, and he was ordered to report to the state parole office upon release from federal custody. The court imposed fines and fees as reflected on the waiver of rights form signed by defendant, including a $259.50 booking fee payable to Santa Clara County.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that the booking fee constitutes an unauthorized sentence because the prosecution failed to establish that the fee represents the actual administrative costs authorized by the governing statute. Setting aside whether defendant preserved his argument in the trial court, the argument is without merit.
Government Code section 29550.2, subdivision (a) provides: “Any person booked into a county jail … is subject to a criminal justice administration fee for administration costs incurred in conjunction with the arresting and booking if the person is convicted of any criminal offense relating to the arrest and booking. The fee which the county is entitled to recover pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed the actual administrative costs, as defined in subdivision (c), including applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A 87 standards, incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons.” Under subdivision (c), “ ‘actual administrative costs’ include only those costs for functions that are performed in order to receive an arrestee into a county detention facility.”
Consistent with Government Code section 29550.2, Santa Clara County Ordinance Code section A14-56 authorizes the county Board of Supervisors to impose a booking fee “not [to] exceed the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs, incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons.” (Santa Clara County Ord. Code, § A14-56(a).) The ordinance provides that “[t]he amount of the fee shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Supervisors by resolution,” and that any increase in the fee may be adopted after notice and a public meeting. (Id., § A14-56(b).)
County of Santa Clara Resolution 25275, adopted on June 20, 2006, recognizes the Board of Supervisors’ authority to impose the booking fee and acknowledges that the fee “cannot exceed the actual administrative costs incurred by County but may include applicable overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A 87 standards.” The analyst’s memo recommending adoption of the resolution states that the proposed $259.50 booking fee “is the actual cost of booking an individual into custody.” Supporting cost calculations show the cost of booking an arrested person into the county jail at $259.51, factoring in (1) salaries for booking and classification staff, medical and mental health staff, and pre-trial services staff, (2) county overhead, and (3) department indirect costs. Those documents are sufficient to establish a booking fee comporting with Government Code section 29550.2. (People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 869 [“[T]he trial court correctly relied on the fee schedule set by the county board of supervisors based on actual cost data.”].) The statute does not require that the 2006 resolution be included in every case file in which the fee is imposed, or that the trial court make findings as to the validity of the fee. The statute does not impose any requirement as to when a booking fee must be recalculated. While the 2006 figures may deserve review by the county, defendant presents no evidence that the cost of booking and processing an arrestee has dropped below the costs calculated in 2006.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

____________________________________
Grover, J.




WE CONCUR:




____________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.




____________________________
Premo, J.